Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered 

Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality 

Management Device

By Steven R. Corsi, Steven R. Greb, Roger T. Bannerman, 

and Robert E. Pitt

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Open-File Report 99-270

Prepared in cooperation with the

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Middleton, Wisconsin 

1999

ZUSGS

science fora changing world
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Charles G. Groat, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to:

District Chief 

U.S. Geological Survey 

8505 Research Way 

Middleton, Wl 53562-3586

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey 

Branch of Information Services 

Box 25286 

Denver, CO 80225-0286
CONTENTS

Abstract.................................................................................................................................^ 1

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and scope....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................~^ 1

Study description.........................................................................................................................................................^ 2

Design of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train....................................................................................................... 2

Site description..................................................................................................^^ 2

Sampling design.......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Evaluation of Multi-Chambered Treatment Train efficiency................................................................................................ 3

Water quantity............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Concentration summary statistics ............................................................................................................................... 5

Water-quality characteristics....................................................................................................................................... 6

Major ions................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Nutrients...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Metals.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.............................................................................................................................. 12

Microtox results.......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Particle-size distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 13

Summary...................................................................................................................................................................^ 13

References cited.................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendixes:

1. Concentrations and other measurements of monitored water-quality characteristics in influent and effluent to

the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train at Ruby Street garage in Milwaukee, Wis.............................................. 18

2. Loads and removal efficiencies of monitored constituents in the influent and effluent to the Multi-Chambered

Treatment Train at Ruby Street Garage in Milwaukee, Wis................................................................................. 23

3. Results from Microtox analyses of influent and effluent samples at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train

at Ruby Street Garage in Milwaukee, Wis........................................................................................................... 24

FIGURES

1. Cross-sectional view of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train device, showing the two sampling

locations in Milwaukee, Wis................................................................................................................................ 2

2. Cumulative rainfall distributions for the study period and historical rainfall records (1948-92) for

Milwaukee, Wis.................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Total influent and effluent loads for volatile suspended solids, total suspended solids, and total

dissolved solids accumulated over the entire rating period at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in 

Milwaukee, Wis.................................................................................................................................................... 10

4. Event-mean concentrations of chloride in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms,

Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis............................................................................ 10

5. Event-mean concentrations of ammonium in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms,

Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis............................................................................. 11

6. Average influent and effluent particle-size distributions for the 15 monitored storms in the

Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, in Milwaukee, Wis...................................................................................... 14

TABLES

1. Aggregate water-quality characteristics and inorganic constituents list analyzed for Multi-Chambered

Treatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis............................................................................................................... 4

2. Organic constituents analyzed for Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis.............................. 5

3. Inorganic influent and effluent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentration values for the

monitored storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis. ................................... 7

4. Dissolved and total influent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentrations of polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons for the monitored storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in 

Milwaukee, Wis.................................................................................................................................................... 8

CONTENTS III
CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS

Multiply By To Obtain

centimeter (cm)

meter (m)

meters2 (m2)

meters3 (m3 )

liter (L)

gram

kilogram (kg)

0.394

3.28

10.76

35.31

0.2642

2.20 x ID'3

2.20

inch

foot

feet2

feet3

gallon

pound

pound

Abbreviated water-quality units used in this report: Chemical concentrations and water temperature are given in metric units. Chemical 

concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (|ig/L). Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per 

liter is equivalent to one milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical value is the same as for concentrations 

in parts per million. Other units of measurement used in this report are microsiemens per centimeter at 25°Celsius (|iS/cm) and micrometers 

(Urn).

IV CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS
Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a 

Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device

By Steven R. Corsi 1 , Steven R. Greb2 , Roger T. Bannerman2 , and Robert E. Pitt3

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the benefits and efficiencies of a device 

called the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train 

(MCTT), which was installed below the pavement 

surface at a municipal maintenance garage and parking facility in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Flowweighted water samples were collected at the inlet 

and outlet of the device during 15 storms, and the 

efficiency of the device was based on reductions in 

the loads of 68 chemical constituents and organic 

compounds. High reduction efficiencies were 

achieved for all particulate-associated constituents, 

including total suspended solids (98 percent), total 

phosphorus (88 percent), and total recoverable zinc 

(91 percent). Reduction rates for dissolved fractions 

of the constituents were substantial, but somewhat 

lower (dissolved solids, 13 percent; dissolved phosphorus, 78 percent; dissolved zinc, 68 percent). The 

total dissolved solids load, which originated from 

roadsalt storage, was more than four times the total 

suspended solids load. No appreciable difference 

was detected between particle-size distributions in 

inflow and outflow samples.

INTRODUCTION

The implementation and installation of water-quality best management practices (BMP's) in developed 

urban areas is problematic. A landscape composed of 

buildings and pavement presents little opportunity for 

placement of new BMP's. To overcome this obstacle of 

limited space, new retrofit BMP technologies are 

emerging that use underground space, and thus do not 

disrupt current above-ground land uses. One such 

device, called the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train 

(MCTT), uses aeration, settling, filtration, sorption, and 

ion exchange to provide a high level of treatment of 

stormwater runoff (Pitt and others, 1997). Underground 

retrofitted BMP's have two additional advantages. First, 

they are effective at targeting source areas that generate

large pollutant loads, such as maintenance yards and 

busy parking lots. Second, they provide a viable alternative where space limitations preclude the use of larger 

open BMP's such as wet detention ponds.

As part of an ongoing program of urban waterquality research in Wisconsin, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, evaluated the water-quality 

benefits of a newly constructed MCTT. The primary 

objective of this project was to design and install a 

MCTT at a municipal maintenance yard and measure 

the pollutant reduction achieved by this device. The 

purpose of this project was to provide Wisconsin's 

urban land managers with additional information about 

the MCTT with which to make decisions on the implementation of BMP's.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the methods of the Milwaukee MCTT study and presents the results of the USGS 

and WDNR evaluation. Detailed data on selected waterquality properties and constituents, including concentrations, loads, toxicities, and efficiencies of removal by 

the MCTT, are listed in appendixes.

Acknowledgments

Additional support for the construction of the 

MCTT and subsequent evaluation work was provided 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(Region V, Section 319 funds), and the City of 

Milwaukee. The authors thank Timothy Thur of the 

City of Milwaukee for providing the site and facilities 

support and Thomas Davenport, USEPA Region V 

project officer for program support.

.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wisconsin.

2Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, 

Wisconsin.

3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Abstract
Inflow

Inlet

sampling

point

Ground level

Drawing not to scale; actual size of selected 

components given in centimeters (cm).

38.1-cm-diameter

concrete

pipe

Outlet

sampling

point

Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train device, showing the two sampling locations in 

Milwaukee, Wis.

STUDY DESCRIPTION

Design of the Multi-Chambered Treatment 

Train

The MCTT consists of three components: a grit 

chamber, a settling chamber, and a filter media chamber 

(fig. 1). The 1.22-m-diameter grit chamber or catch 

basin removes the larger sized particles in runoff from 

the contributing area. In addition, a mesh bag of column 

packing balls suspended in the grit chamber enhances 

aeration and removal of highly volatile components 

(this component was not used for the MCTT in this 

project). The second chamber, where most of the settling takes place, contains inclined tube settlers that 

increase removal of solids by reducing the distance that 

particles must fall. The modular tubes are slanted at 60 

degrees, so particles are not required to fall the full 

depth of the tank. As the water flows through the tubes, 

particles settle on the tube walls. Eventually, built-up 

material on the tube walls sloughs off and collects in the 

bottom of the tank, where it is periodically pumped out. 

The chamber also contains absorbent pillows that 

remove floatable hydrocarbons. Stormwater fills the 

tank and then slowly drains to the final chamber by way 

of a 0.9-cm orifice. This restricted outlet increases

x

water-retention time in the settling tank (24 hours when 

filled completely) and enhances the particle settling. 

The third chamber, called the filter media chamber, contains a mixed media of sand, peat, and activated carbon 

supported by filter fabric and is designed to remove fine 

particles, along with some dissolved constituents by 

means of sorption and ion exchange. Water exits this 

chamber through a perforated pipe underlying the filter 

media and flows directly into the existing storm sewer.

The second and third chambers at the study site 

were constructed from a single partitioned concrete box 

(3.0 m wide x 4.6 m long x 1.5 m high). The capacity of 

the settling chamber is 21 m3 , although the height of the

o

orifice results in a dead-storage capacity of 10.5 m , 

leaving the actual storm-volume capacity at 10.5 m3 . 

Once this capacity is reached, any additional water 

backs up on the parking-lot surface, eventually spilling 

over to an adjacent storm-sewer inlet.

Manhole covers were placed in the top of the settling and filter media chambers for access and maintenance purposes. According to design and operation 

specifications, the unit should be inspected every 6 

months to ensure all chambers are operational. The 

maintenance requirements are somewhat site specific, 

although the catch basin and settling chambers should 

be cleaned every 6-12 months and the filter media 

should be replaced every 3-5 years.

Site Description

The site chosen for this project was a municipal 

maintenance garage and parking facility in Milwaukee,

2 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Wis. The site is used heavily by garbage trucks, plows, 

and other large road equipment. The garage, originally 

built in 1948, is surrounded by a large parking area 

composed mainly of aged asphalt with some concrete 

pavement. Given the nature of the parking lot's activities, it is common for oily deposits, yard waste, sand, 

and salt to accumulate on the pavement surface. Runoff 

water from the parking area drains into the storm-sewer 

system through several storm grates/catch-basin inlets. 

The MCTT device was installed below the pavement 

surface and placed in line between one of the catch 

basins and the existing storm-sewer pipe. Because of 

the finite capacity of the MCTT and the slow draining 

of the settling chamber, the unit was expected to 

become surcharged when rainfalls exceeded 1.26 cm, 

but an overestimation of the runoff area draining to the 

MCTT led to an overdesign of the device. Consequently, the device can actually hold water from a 

2.5 cm rainfall without being surcharged (the surface

r*

area draining to this device is approximately 426 m ).

Sampling Design

The evaluation of the installed MCTT device was 

based on results of chemical analyses of flow-weighted 

samples collected during 15 storms at two locations, the 

inlet and outlet of the device.

The 15 storms (events) were monitored as three 

separate groups. The first group consisted of four consecutive events, the second was five consecutive events, 

and the third was six consecutive events. This was done 

for two reasons: first, because the settling tank has some 

permanent storage, monitoring individual events would 

not allow for direct comparison of influent and effluent 

from the same event, and second, technical difficulties 

two times during the monitoring period prevented the 

sampling of 15 consecutive events.

Flow into the device was calculated from velocity 

measurements in the inlet pipe. Flow out of the settling 

chamber was calculated from water-level measurements in the settling chamber. Outlet flow was assumed 

to be equal to flow out of the settling chamber.The influent (inlet) sample was collected from a creased flat plate 

mounted below the storm grate. The effluent (outlet) 

sample was collected from the perforated pipe draining 

the filter-media chamber. The 15 flow-weighted samples were collected by automated sampling equipment. 

Two refrigerated samplers equipped with peristaltic 

pumps and Teflon-lined sample tubing collected the

influent and effluent samples in four 10-L glass jars. 

Composite samples were processed for analysis only if 

at least two subsamples were collected during increasing flow, two subsamples during decreasing flow, and 

one near the peak flow. Samples were transported to the 

Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH), 

where they were analyzed for a total of 68 constituents, 

including solids, nutrients, trace metals, and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's). All constituents tested 

at the WSLH, along with their abbreviations, detection 

limits, and method used, are listed in tables 1 and 2. The 

Microtox toxicity screening procedure (Azur Environmental Inc., Carlsbad, Calif.) was performed on all 15 

influent and effluent samples. This rapid procedure 

involves a marine bioluminescence bacteria (Vibrio fischeri)', samples having greater toxicity are indicated by 

less light output. Particle-size analysis was performed 

on all samples using a Coulter Counter Multisizer II 

(Beckman Coulter Inc., Fullerton, Calif). Both Microtox and particle-size analysis were done at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Environmental 

Engineering Laboratory. Loads were computed as the 

product of the event-mean concentration and total 

stormflow volume, thus the removal performance of the 

device was measured by comparing differences in constituent mass into and out of the device. All computations and statistical analyses were done with SAS 

statistical software (1988).

EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED 

TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY

Water Quantity

Fifteen storms, occurring from April 29 through 

September 8,1996, were monitored and sampled. Rainfall amounts for these storms ranged from 0.45 to 3.48 

cm. Calculations based on the delineated drainage area 

indicate that total stormwater volumes for the storms 

ranged from 1.96 to 14.9 m3 . The actual quantity of 

water passing through the MCTT was 1.72 to 9.10 m3 . 

None of the storms resulted in surcharge of the MCTT. 

On average, 87 percent of the rainfall resulted in direct 

runoff to the MCTT. The remaining rainfall volume 

may have been lost in interception storage, through 

cracks in the aged pavement surface, or through joint 

leaks between the grit chamber and the main settling 

chamber.

EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
Table 1. Aggregate water-quality characteristics and inorganic constituents analyzed for Multi-Chambered 

Treatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; ug/L, micrograms per liter]

Constituent

Aggregate Characteristics

Alkalinity, total

Biochemical oxygen demand

Chemical oxygen demand

Color

pH

Specific conductance

Total dissolved solids

Total suspended solids

Turbidity

Volatile suspended solids

Nutrients

Ammonium as N

Nitrate + nitrite as N

Dissolved phosphorus

Total phosphorus

Major ions

Total calcium

Dissolved calcium

Chloride

Dissolved magnesium

Total magnesium

Sulfate

Metals

Dissolved cadmium

Total cadmium

Dissolved chromium

Total chromium

Dissolved copper

Total copper

Dissolved lead

Total lead

Dissolved zinc

Total zinc

Abbreviation

Alk.

BOD

COD

Color (PU)

pH

SC

TDS

TSS

Turbid.

VSS

NH4

NO3

DP

TP

Ca

Ca

Cl

Mg

Mg

S04

Cd

Cd

Cr

Cr

Cu

Cu

Pb

Pb

Zn

Zn

Units

mg/L as CaCO3

mg/L

mg/L

Plat. -Cobalt

Standard Units

Us/cm

mg/L

mg/L

NTU

mg/L

mg/L as N

mg/L as N

mg/L as P

mg/L as P

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Hg/L

Hg/L

Hg/L

f-ig/L

Ug/L

Hg/L

l-ig/L

[j,g/L

f-ig/L

fj,g/L

Limit of 

Detection

5

3

5

1

0.1

7

5

5

.05

5

.027

.02

.002

.008

1

1

1

1

1

5

.02

.04

.5

1

.7

1

.4

.8

8

19

Method1

SM 2320B

SM5210B

EPA 41 0.4

SM2120B

SM4500B

SM2510B

SM2540C

SM2540D

SM3120B

SM2540F

SM4500H

SM4500F

SM4500PF

SM4500PB

SM3111B

SM3111B

SM4500CL

SM3111B

SM3120B

SM4500SO4

SM3113B

EPA 200.9

SM3113B

EPA 200.9

SM3113B

EPA 200.9

SM3113B

EPA 200.9

SM3113B

EPA 200.9

'EPA (1979); and SM, Standard Methods, American Public Health Association and others, 1989.

4 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Table 2. Organic constituents analyzed for Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, 

Milwaukee, Wis.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; ^g/L, micrograms per liter; PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; -, none]

Parameter

Dissolved organic carbon

Total organic carbon

Sum of total PAH's2

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

Benz[a]anthracene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Benzo[6]fluoranthene

Benzo[g, h, /]perylene

Benzo[£]fluoranthene

Chrysene

Dibenz[a, /j]anthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno[l,2,3-c,J]pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Abbreviation Units Limit of Detection

DOC mg/L as C 1

TOC mg/L as C 1

TPAH ug/L 0.47

N/A ug/L .048

Ug/L .044

Ug/L .015

Ug/L .059

Ug/L .041

Ug/L .073

ptg/L .05

Ug/L .059

Ug/L .03

Ug/L .019

Ug/L .098

Ug/L .12

Ug/L .078

Ug/L .054

Ug/L .035

Ug/L .063

Method1

SM5310

SM5311

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

SW8310

'SM, Standard Methods, American Public Health Association and others, 1989; and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (1996) solid-waste method.

2Sum of total PAH's includes the sum of all 16 species of total PAH.

Compared to historical precipitation records, the 

depths of rainfall for these 15 storms were larger than 

average (fig. 2). This may be due to the short period that 

the MCTT was monitored, which included mainly 

warm weather rainstorms. The historical record includes 

precipitation from the entire year (from intense summer 

thunderstorms, long duration fall and spring rainfall, 

and snowfall). Long-term records (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 1997) show only 20 

percent of Milwaukee storms are greater than 1.3 cm in 

precipitation, whereas during the period of study, 

approximately half of the storms were greater than 1.3 

cm. Therefore, in terms of rainfall amounts, the studyperiod events may be considered a rigorous test of the 

system. The fact that none of the storm-runoff amounts 

exceeded the design capacity, even though the largest 

amounts were expected to, was due to inaccurate delineation of the drainage area at the design phase and 

resultant overdesign of the unit.

Concentration Summary Statistics

Summaries of the inorganic and organic concentration data for the inflow and outflow samples are given

in tables 3 and 4 and in appendix 1, and a summary of 

the load data and removal efficiencies of the MCTT is 

given in appendix 2. All samples were collected on a 

volume-weighted basis; hence, the concentrations 

reported here are event-mean concentrations. The constituent concentrations in the runoff entering the unit 

were characteristic of stormwater quality found in previous studies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1983; Ellis, 1986; Bannerman and others, 1983, 1993, 

1996). The data sets were tested for normality/ log-normality using the Shapiro-Wilk statistic (SAS, 1988). 

This procedure produces a test statistic for the null 

hypothesis that the input data values are a random sample from a normal or transformed-normal distribution. 

In general, inorganic as well as organic constituent concentrations were found to be log-normally distributed. 

Of the 68 constituents measured in the influent, 21 were 

normally distributed and 47 were log-normally distributed (a <0.05). This test should be interpreted with caution, however, because of its low power when applied to 

the sample size of 10-15 observations. The log-normal 

distributions are consistent with the findings of others 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983; DiToro, 

1984).

EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 

FRACTION OF RAINFALLS, LESS THAN THE GIVEN AMOUNT

Figure 2. Cumulative rainfall distributions for the study period and historical rainfall records (1948-92) for Milwaukee, Wis.

Influent samples generally had detectable concentrations of most constituents tested. The exception was 

dissolved zinc (Zn) and the dissolved fractions of 15 of 

the 16 PAH's, which rarely were detectable. The one 

dissolved PAH that was consistently measurable in the 

influent was phenanthrene (median = 0.1 fig/L).

In the effluent water, all dissolved and total PAH 

concentrations were below detection limits. In addition, 

total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids 

(VSS), dissolved cadmium (Cd), dissolved lead (Pb), 

dissolved Zn and total Zn were generally below detection limits in the effluent samples. The preponderance 

of nondetectable values in effluent samples made the 

determination of normality problematic. Having effluent values reported as "less than" for a constituent also 

made the exact calculation of removal efficiencies 

impossible. In those cases, removal efficiencies were 

estimated using one half of the detection limit as the 

concentration of the effluent.

The nonparametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum 

test (SAS, 1988) was applied to the influent and effluent 

concentrations of all constituents, the null hypothesis 

being that the distributions of the influent and effluent 

concentrations are the same. Constituents with significant differences (a=0.05) are noted in tables 3 and 4. A 

paired statistical test comparing individual storms was 

not used because, during any given storm, the water 

exiting the device will not be the same water that 

entered the device because of the permanent storage 

volume and hydraulic residence time in the settling 

tank. Influent and effluent concentrations of constituents that were not found to be significantly different 

were either soluble constituents that are generally considered conservative (for example, chloride) or constituents that have the potential to be generated within the 

tank (for example, ammonia). Because influent and 

effluent concentrations of some constituents (for example, dissolved PAH's) frequently were below detection 

limits, significant changes in concentrations were indeterminable.

Water-Quality Characteristics

Concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) in 

influent ranged widely, from 79 to 1,050 mg/L; median 

concentration was 232 mg/L (table 3, appendix 1). As 

stated previously, most of the effluent TSS concentra6 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Table 3. Inorganic influent and effluent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentration values for the monitored 

storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis.

[BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; TDS, total dissolved solids; TSS, total suspended solids; VSS, volatile suspended 

solids; NH4, ammonium, as N; NO3, nitrate plus nitrate; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; Cl, chloride; SO4, sulfate; Cd, cadmium; Cr, chromium; Cu, copper; 

Pb, lead; Zn, zinc; TOC, All units in milligrams per liter unless otherwise noted. Bold font identifies constituents for which influent concentrations are 

significantly different (a=0.05) from effluent concentrations using a nonparametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test.]

Characteristic or constituent

Aggregate characteristic

Turbidity (NTU)

Color (PU)

BOD

COD

pH (SIC)

Alkalinity

TDS

TSS

VSS

Nutrients

NH4 as N

NO2 + NO3 as N

Phosphorus, total

Phosphorus, dissolved

Maior Ions

Ca, total

Ca, dissolved

Mg, total

Mg, dissolved

Cl

SO4

Metals

Cd,dissolved (fAg/L)

Cr, dissolved (f^g/L)

Cu, dissolved (f^g/L)

Pb, dissolved (^ig/L)

Zn, dissolved (^ig/L)

Cd-total (ng/L)

Cr, total (jig/L)

Cu, total (fAg/L)

Pb, total (fAg/L)

Zn, total (fAg/L)

Organics

Total organic carbon

Dissolved organic carbon

Sum of total polycycli 

aromatic hydrocarbon

Minimum

9.3

10

8.8

52

6.8

20

164

79

17

<.027

.180

.101

<.002

18

8.3

4.0

.4

57

10

.03

<.5

1.7

<.4

<8

.48

3

11

16

55

2.2

2.1

2.9

Influent

Maximum

100

70

51

260

8.1

58

5,930

1,050

154

.258

1.36

.440

.040

210

45

100

1.2

3,560

58

1.1

2.0

12

7.6

38

3.7

14

58

72

250

20

17

23

Median

41

30

15

115

7.2

40

634

232

52

.051

.353

.262

.0025

43

16

14

.82

302

19

.22

.8

4.4

.9

<8

1.5

6

32

48

150

7.9

6.8

8.3

Minimum

0.7

5.0

<3.0

<5.0

7.5

51

320

<5.0

<5.0

<.027

.074

.014

.002

19

18

2.1

2.0

100

16

<.02

<.5

<.7

<.4

<8

<.04

<1

2

<.8

<19

2.1

2.0

<.47

Effluent

Maximum

10

25

9.2

33

8.1

122

3,070

18

12

.115

.463

.088

.0016

66

68

13

13

1820

47

.97

3.4

5.7

1.3

22

1.0

18

8

3.9

53

11

9.5

<.89

Median

2.6

15

<3

13

7.8

82

885

<5.0

<5.0

.062

.273

.023

.002

32

31

3.4

3.4

427

27

.05

.8

1.4

<.4

<8

.10

<1

3

1.8

<19

4.4

4.1

<.89

EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
Table 4. Dissolved and total influent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean 

concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for the monitored storms (n=15) 

at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis.

[Concentrations in micrograms per liter. All effluent concentrations were below detection limits.]

Constituent

Dissolved PAH species

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

B enz [a] anthracene

Benzo[a]pyrene

B enzo [&]fluoranthene

B enzo [g, h, i Jperylene

Benzo[£]fluoranthene

Chrysene

Dibenz [a, h] anthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno [l,2,3-c,d] py rene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Total PAH species

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Anthracene

B enz [a] anthracene

Benzo[a]pyrene

Benzo[6]fluoranthene

B enzo [g, h, Jperylene

B enzo [k] fluoranthene

Chrysene

Dibenz [a, h] anthracene

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno[7,2,3-c,c?]pyrene

Naphthalene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Minimum1

<0.048

<.044

<.015

<.059

<.041

<.073

<.05

<.059

<.03

<.019

<.098

<.12

<.078

<.054

<.035

<.063

<.048

<.044

<.015

<.24

<.4

<.23

<.64

<.46

<.26

<.24

.51

<.12

<.8

<.054

.12

.47

Maximum

<0.048

<.044

.026

.23

.38

.54

.38

.24

.52

.038

1.1

<.12

.39

<.054

.35

.79

.23

<.044

.34

1.4

1.6

2

1.4

1

2.1

1.4

5.1

.38

1.4

<.054

2.8

3.2

Median

<0.048

<.044

<.015

<.059

<.041

<.073

<.05

<.059

<.03

<.019

<.098

<.12

<.078

<.054

.105

<.063

<.048

<.044

.101

.5

.55

.77

.53

.31

.8

.5

1.75

<.12

.48

<.054

.71

1.3

Digestion of samples for total analysis resulted in higher detection limits. In addition, detection limits 

varied during the period of study. Bold font identifies constituents in which influent concentrations are significantly different (a=0.05) from effluent concentrations using a nonparametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

8 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
dons were below detection limit (8 out of 14). The highest concentration of TSS observed in the effluent was 

only 18 mg/L. Because most effluent TSS values were 

below detection limit, it was difficult to determine if any 

discernible relation existed between influent and effluent concentrations. The influent TSS concentrations 

from all 15 storms exceeded Wisconsin's discharge 

limit of 30 mg/L (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 

210, 1997). The cumulative load of TSS to the unit for 

the 15 consecutive storms was 18.3 kg (appendix 2). 

The amount of TSS in the effluent was estimated to be 

only 0.30 kg, making the overall removal efficiency 

greater than 98 percent. Pitt and others (1997) reported 

a lower overall TSS removal of 83 percent in their pilotscale testing. In examining concentrations at intermediate points, they found that most of the TSS was removed 

in the settling chamber.

Influent volatile suspended solids (VSS) ranged 

from 17 to 154 mg/L; median concentration was 

52 mg/L. The VSS concentrations averaged 21 percent 

of TSS in the influent, an indication that most of the particulate material entering the unit was inorganic. On a 

cumulative mass basis, the VSS influent load was 

17 percent of the influent TSS load. Effluent VSS concentrations ranged from less than 5 to 12 mg/L; 58 percent of the samples were below the detection limit. The 

overall load reduction of VSS (> 94 percent) was similar to that for TSS. The influent biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD) concentrations ranged from 8.8 to 

51 mg/L. Only one sample had a BOD concentration 

that would exceed the Wisconsin discharge limit of 30 

mg/L (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 210, 1997). 

Again, most BOD in effluent samples (58 percent) was 

below the detection limit. The estimate of overall 

removal efficiency for BOD was 82 percent or greater. 

The chemical oxygen demand (COD) influent and 

effluent concentrations (median = 115 and 13, respectively) were considerably greater than the BOD concentrations. Influent VSS concentrations were well 

correlated with both BOD and COD concentrations 

(r = 0.62 and 0.82, respectively), confirming the organic 

nature of this solid material. The average ratio of BOD 

to COD was 0.15 in the influent, suggesting that this 

organic material was highly refractory. The unit 

removed 86 percent of the total COD load.

Total dissolved solids (TDS) in influent samples 

had a median concentration of 634 mg/L and a range of 

164 to 5,930 mg/L. The source of the high dissolved 

solids in samples collected during the middle of the 

study period was road salt stored within the drainage

area. This salt resulted in a load of dissolved solids to 

the unit that was more than 4.5 times the paniculate 

(suspended solids) load for the period of study. The relative loads of the three aggregate solids characteristics 

are illustrated in figure 3. (Note that the y-axis is plotted 

on a log scale.)

Major Ions

Total calcium (Ca) had the greatest influent concentrations (median = 43 mg/L) of the reported cations 

(table 3, appendix 1). Though not directly measured, the 

ionic balance and high chloride concentrations suggest 

that sodium and/or potassium were most likely the dominant cations. Dissolved Ca concentrations generally 

made up half of the total Ca in the influent. Total magnesium (Mg) concentrations followed a similar stormto-storm pattern as total calcium concentrations, but at 

about one-third the concentration (median = 14 mg/L). 

Dissolved Mg generally made up only 10 percent of the 

total Mg in the influent.

In effluent, total Ca concentrations were always 

less than those in the influent, although the median values differed by only 4.5 mg/L. Somewhat surprisingly, 

the dissolved Ca concentrations in the effluent were 

consistently greater than the influent concentrations, 

suggesting either dissolution of some of the influent 

paniculate Ca and (or) addition of Ca ions to the stormwater from the unit itself (that is, concrete walls of the 

catch basin and main tank). Magnesium behaved similarly, with dissolved Mg concentrations in effluent 

greater than those in influent. On a load basis, the unit 

removed 55 and 85 percent of the total Ca and Mg, 

respectively (appendix 2). The increase in dissolved Ca 

and Mg concentrations resulted in negative efficiencies 

for these analytes (-62 and -340, respectively). The 

effluent loads of both dissolved Ca and Mg were equal 

to their respective total loads, implying that the Ca and 

Mg leaving the unit was virtually all in the dissolved 

phase.

Chloride (Cl) was by far the dominant anion in all 

the samples (median influent and effluent = 302 and 

427 mg/L, respectively). Again, this was a result of road 

salt being stored within the drainage area during the 

study period. Both influent and effluent concentrations 

during the 15 storms are shown in figure 4. Placement 

of the road salt on site occurred between the fourth and 

fifth storms, and this is clearly evident in the sharp 

increase in Cl concentrations in figure 4. Peak effluent

EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
300

100 -

cc CD 

o

o 

<

o

VOLATILE

SUSPENDED

SOLIDS

TOTAL

SUSPENDED

SOLIDS

TOTAL

DISSOLVED

SOLIDS

Figure 3. Total influent and effluent loads for volatile suspended solids, total suspended solids, and total dissolved solids 

accumulated over the entire rating period at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis. (Removal efficiencies, 

in percent, are noted above the effluent load bars.)

a: 4000 LU

CC 

LU

a.

CO

3000

2000

1000

DC 

O

O 

<

CC

5 o

Influent 

Effluent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

STORM NUMBER

Figure 4. Event-mean concentrations of chloride in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms, Multi-Chambered 

Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis.

10 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
cc

Ul 

H

_l 

CC 

Ul

a.

CO

1 

(D

d

<

cc

LU

o

o

o

o 2 2 

<

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

10 12 14 16

STORM NUMBER

Figure 5. Event-mean concentrations of ammonium in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms, Multi-Chambered 

Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis.

concentration, however, was substantially less than the 

peak influent concentration. This attenuation of maximum effluent concentrations was due to dilution of the 

influent waters with previously stored water in the settling tank. Although Cl is generally considered to be a 

conservative constituent, the difference between influent and effluent loads of 20 percent suggests that the 

unit did remove a portion of the Cl.

Alkalinity concentrations were considerably less 

than Cl concentrations (median influent and effluent 

concentrations = 40 and 82 mg/L, respectively). On an 

equivalence basis, alkalinity (as bicarbonate) closely 

tracked Ca concentrations and increased as the water 

passed through the unit, again pointing to an addition/dissolution of calcium carbonate in the unit.

Nutrients

cent) was somewhat greater than that for NO3 , although 

the rate decreased over the study period because of a 

steady rise in effluent concentrations over the last five 

storms (fig. 5). This rise of ammonium concentrations 

in effluent indicates that the settling-chamber contents 

may become anaerobic as sediments begin to accumulate and reduced species are subsequently released 

within the unit.

Influent total phosphorus (P) ranged from 0.10 to 

0.44 mg/L; the median was 0.26 mg/L. Effluent concentrations were generally an order of magnitude less than 

influent concentrations (median = 0.02 mg/L), resulting 

in a high overall removal efficiency of 88 percent. Dissolved P was consistently less than 10 percent of the 

total P in the influent and the effluent samples. Dissolved P removal efficiency (78 percent), although 

somewhat less than total P removal, was still substantial.

The median nitrate (NO3 ) concentrations in the 

influent and effluent were 0.35 and 0.27 mg/L, respectively (table 3). Removal efficiency of this mobile nitrogen species was 32 percent (appendix 2). Ammonium 

(NH4 ) concentrations were often considerably less than 

NO3 concentrations in the influent and the effluent 

(appendix 1). The removal rate for ammonium (47 perMetals

Influent metals concentrations were characteristic 

of values previously observed in stormwater runoff in 

Wisconsin (Bannerman and others, 1996). Median total 

recoverable metal concentrations, in increasing order,

EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY 11
were Cd (1.5 (ig/L), Cr (6 (ig/L), Cu (32 (ig/L), Pb 

(48 |ig/L), and Zn (150 (ig/L) (table 3). The total recoverable metal concentrations in effluent followed a similar order of increasing concentration, except that lead 

and copper were reversed (appendix 1). Concentrations 

of all total recoverable metals in effluent were generally 

an order of magnitude less than concentrations in influent. A comparison of total recoverable metals concentrations in influent to Wisconsin acute toxicity criteria 

for warmwater sport fisheries (Wisconsin Admininstrative Code, NR105, 1997) showed that Cu exceeded the 

criteria in 15 of 15 samples, Pb in 7 of 15 samples, and 

Zn in 14 of 15 samples. In contrast, no total recoverable 

metal concentrations in effluent exceeded metal-toxic - 

ity criteria.

Removal efficiencies of the MCTT were substantial for all the total recoverable metals, ranging from 

78 percent for Cr to 96 percent for Pb (appendix 2). 

Because most of the total recoverable metal concentrations were in the particulate form, the physical removal 

of particulates may be occurring in all three chambers of 

the unit, although the bulk of the particulates (associated with the suspended solids) was most likely being 

removed in the settling chamber. MCTT performance 

data collected by Pitt and others (1997) for TSS and 

unfiltered metals also suggests this, although for Cd and 

Cu, efficiencies were substantially less than those for 

the unit used in this study. This difference may have 

been due to several factors, such as a different mixture 

of filter media, the different concentration ranges of Cd 

and Cu, and differences in the proportion of these metals in the dissolved form, which are less effectively 

removed than those in particulate form.

Concentrations of dissolved metals in the influent 

to the MCTT followed the order of Cd < Cr < Pb < Cu 

< Zn. The concentrations in effluent appeared to follow 

a similar order, although a full characterization of metals concentrations is again difficult because of many 

below detection limit. With the exception of Cr, 

removal efficiencies of dissolved metals ranged from 66 

to 78 percent, somewhat less than their respective total 

metal removals efficiencies (appendix 2). Because concentrations in effluent were generally found below 

detection limits, actual removals may have been greater, 

especially for Cd, Pb, and Zn. The order of removal efficiencies of dissolved metals was Cr < Cd < Zn < Cu 

<Pb. The removal of the dissolved phase of these metals 

most likely occurred in the sand/peat/carbon filter 

chamber. A similar order of "affinity" in peat materials 

was noted by Pakarinen and others (1981) for Cu, Pb,

and Zn. They did not describe Cd and Cr affinities. Dissolved chromium, which has a higher valence and 

requires time to reach exchange equilibrium, had virtually no removal efficiency (-3.3 percent) (Aho and 

Tummavuori, 1984).

Although the concentrations of metals generally 

were greatly reduced by the treatment of the MCTT, the 

proportion of metal in the dissolved phase generally 

increased. In the influent samples, the average ratio of 

dissolved metal to total metal concentrations ranged 

from 3 percent for Pb to 19 percent for Cu. In the effluent samples, the proportion of the dissolved phase in the 

total recoverable metal was higher ranging from 20 percent for Cd to 80 percent for Cr.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Detectable concentrations of 12 of the 16 total 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) species were 

typically found in influent samples to the MCTT 

(table 4, appendix 1). The four species that were below 

detection limits in more than 50 percent of the samples 

were total acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, and 

naphthalene. Concentrations of total fluoranthene and 

pyrene were consistently double or more than the concentrations of other PAH species, with median concentrations of 1.8 and 1.4 jag/L, respectively. The sum of 

total PAH concentrations for all 16 species (2 total 

PAH) in the influent samples ranged from 2.9 to 

23 |ig/L. The median 2 total PAH concentration was 

8.3 M-g/L, considerably less than what was reported by 

Steuer and others (1997) for parking lots. All of the 15 

influent samples exceeded the Wisconsin human cancer 

criterion of 0.1 (ig/L (Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR105,1997) for the class of streams draining this area. 

This criterion is based on dermal contact and the consumption of warmwater sport fish taken from these 

waters.

In the influent, the 2 dissolved PAH averaged 

14 percent of the 2 total PAH. The average percentage 

may be less because the dissolved fractions were commonly reported as less than detection limits, and actual 

concentrations are unknown. The only dissolved PAH 

species in the influent that was consistently reported 

above the detection limit was phenanthrene 

(median=0.1 (ig/L). The dissolved PAH concentrations 

were also consistently above the Wisconsin human cancer criterion of 0.1 (ig/L.

12 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Little interpretation can be made from the effluent 

PAH data because, without exception, all values were 

reported as less than the detection limit. Consequently, 

all PAH removal efficiencies are conservative estimates 

of actual removal rates. Efficiencies of individual total 

PAH's ranged from >53 percent for total fluorene to 

>98 percent for total phenanthrene, and for 11 of the 

total PAH's, efficiencies were 90 percent (appendix 2). 

The removal efficiencies of the dissolved PAH fractions 

ranged from >22 percent (dibenzanthracene) to 

>86 percent (phenanthrene) and were consistently 

lower than the removal efficiencies for total PAH's. 

This finding does not necessarily suggest a lower 

removal efficiency of dissolved PAH fractions; the 

lower efficiencies may be an artifact due to a preponderance of "less-than" values or concentrations approaching the detection limit.

Because most of the PAH's were found in the particulate fraction, most of the removal probably occurred 

in the settling chamber, consistent with the findings of 

Pitt and others (1997). In addition, peat materials, such 

as those found in the filter chamber, have been shown to 

be effective in removing oily material (Mathavan and 

Viraraghavan, 1989).

Microtox Results

Microtox-assay results, reported as gamma values, 

are computed as the amount of light lost from exposed 

fluorescent bacteria (as compared to a laboratory control) divided by the amount of light remaining. The 

larger the value of gamma, the greater the detrimental 

effect the sample has on the test microbes. Influentsample gamma values from 15-minute assays ranged 

from 0.02 to 0.49; the median was 0.12 (appendix 3). In 

contrast, all effluent samples yielded negative gamma 

values (median = -0.17), suggesting that the effluent 

water was a better medium for microbial growth than 

the laboratory control water. Without exception, Microtox gamma values were less in effluent samples than 

influent samples, a strong indication that toxicity was 

reduced by MCTT treatment. There was however, little 

indication of any simple relation (linear regression) 

between Microtox gamma values for influent and concentrations of any single constituent.

Particle-Size Distribution

The particle-size data were summarized by averaging the 15 influent and effluent cumulative distributions 

of those data (fig. 6). Each trace on this plot represents 

the average percentage of particles less than the given 

size for each measured particle-size fraction. Most 

influent and effluent particles were in the silt-size fraction. Somewhat surprising was the fact that no appreciable shift in the particle-size distribution was observed 

between the influent and effluent particle sizes. One 

might expect a selective removal of the larger particles 

and subsequent decrease in the average particle size as 

the water passed through the filter media. The findings 

here, however, suggest that the mean particle size, or 

D50, actually increased from 18 jim in the influent water 

to 28 Jim in the treated effluent water; thus, the unit may 

not have been selective in the size of particles it 

removed. Another possibility is that large particulate 

materials were indeed removed in the settling chamber, 

but escaped sand fines from the filter media were later 

reintroduced. Because no samples were collected 

between the settling and filter chambers, the proportion 

of the suspended-solids treatment that can be attributed 

to each section of the unit cannot be determined. 

Another indication that the filter chamber can potentially lose particles is reported by Pitt and others (1997), 

who noted a slight increase in TSS concentrations as the 

water passed through the filter tank of their pilot-scale 

unit. Therefore, the unit may be selectively removing 

larger particles but, coincidently, may be adding similar 

particles from the filter-media material, resulting in little change in the distributions. It is emphasized, however, that even though the particle-size distribution 

influent remained similar, the overall removal rate of 

the particulate material by the unit was 98 percent of the 

influent suspended-solids load.

SUMMARY

The MCTT treated all the stormwater that drained 

to the unit for the 15 storms monitored. The actual quantity of water passing through the MCTT ranged from 

1.7 to 8.9 m3 for individual storms and was, on average, 

87 percent of the rainfall volume. High reduction efficiencies were found for all particulate-associated constituents, such as TSS (98 percent), total P (88 percent), 

and total Zn (91 percent). Dissolved fractions were 

removed at substantial but somewhat lower rates (TDS, 

13 percent; dissolved P, 78 percent; dissolved Zn,

SUMMARY 13
100

LU

£ 80

LU 

O

£ 60

a.

LU 40

O

z

< 20

hu)

u>

y o

CO 

LU

d 100

fc 

<

S: so

LU

I

LU 

O 

DC 

LU

a.

60

20

Influent

Effluent

20 40 60 80 100 

PARTICLE SIZE, IN MICROMETERS

120 140

Figure 6. Average influent and effluent particle-size distributions for the 15 monitored storms in the Multi-Chambered Treatment 

Train, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (The dotted lines represent +/-1 standard deviation.)

68 percent). The TDS load, which was composed 

mainly of road salt, was four times the load of TSS. 

Increases of Ca, Mg, and alkalinity were attributed to 

dissolution or leaching of the cement from the MCTT 

tanks. In addition, NH4 began to rise slowly over the latter part of the study, presumably because of aneaerobic 

sediment buildup in the settling chamber. No appreciable shift was seen between influent and effluent particle-size distribution.

REFERENCES CITED

Aho, M., and Tummavuori, J., 1984, The effect of experimental conditions on ion exchange properties of sphagnum 

peat: Suo, v. 35, p. 47-53.

American Public Health Association, 1989, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste water, 17th 

ed.: Washington, D.C. [variously paginated].

Bannerman, R.T., Baun, K., Bohn, M., Hughes, P.E., and 

Graczyk, D.A., 1983, Evaluation of urban nonpoint 

source pollution management in Milwaukee County, 

Wisconsin Vol. 1. for U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region V: Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources Publication PB 84-114164 [variously paginated].

Bannerman, R.T., Legg, A.D., and Greb, S.R., 1996, Quality 

of Wisconsin stormwater, 1989-94: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 96-458, 26 p.

Bannerman, R.T., Owens, D.B., Dodds, R.B., and Hornewer, 

N.J., 1993, Sources of pollutants in Wisconsin stormwater: Water Science Technology, v. 28, no. 3-5, 

p. 241-259.

14 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
DiToro, D.M., 1984, Probability model of stream quality due 

to runoff: Journal of Environmental Engineering, 

ASCE, v. 110, no. 3, p. 607-628.

Ellis, J.B., 1986, Pollutional aspects of urban runoff, Torno, 

H.C., Marsalek, J., and Desbordes, M., eds., Urban runoff pollution: Berlin, New York, Springer Verlag, 

p. 1-36.

Mathavan, G.N., and Viraraghavan, T., 1989, Use of peat in 

the treatment of oily waters: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 45, p. 17-25.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1997, 

National Climatic Data Center: Milwaukee General 

Mitchell Airport Precipitation records 1948-1996 

[variously paginated].

Pakarinen, P., Tolonen, K., and Soveri, J., 1981, Distribution 

of trace metals and sulfur in the surface waters of Finnish raised bogs in Proceedings, Sixth International Peat 

Congress, Duluth, Minnesota, USA: Eveleth, Minn., 

Fisher, p. 645-648.

Pitt, R., Robertson, B., Barren, P., Ayyoubi, A., and Clark, S., 

1997, Stormwater treatment at critical areas. V. 1 The 

Multi-Chambered Treatment Train (MCTT), University 

of Alabama-Birmingham: Edison, NJ. Prepared for 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wet-Weather

Flow Management Program, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. 08837, 169 p.

SAS Institute Inc., 1988, Language guide for personal computers, release 6.03 Ed: Gary, N.C., 558 p.

Steuer, J., Selbig, W., Horner, N., and Prey, J., 1997, Sources 

of contamination in an urban basin in Marquette, Michigan and an analysis of concentrations, loads, and data 

quality: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4242, 25 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Test methods 

for evaluation of solid waste, S W846 (3d ed.): Washington, D.C. [variously paginated].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983, Results of the 

Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, volume 1- final 

report, Water Planning Division: Washington, D.C., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NTIS No. 

PB84-185552 [variously paginated].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, Methods for 

chemical analysis of water and wastes: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 600/4-79-020, 460 p.

Wisconsin Administrative Code, 1997, Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection General. Chapters NR100- and 200 [variously paginated].

REFERENCES CITED 15

APPENDIXES 1-3

APPENDIXES 1-3 17
uorjenieAg jo am pajaqiueu.o-!i|n|/\| luauiieajj. 'UJBJJ. e iuaiua6eue|/\|

O to U) ^. ^/l 

^J ^J ~-J OO 

~^ r>j r~; oo r^: ^o ' 'NJ N> *^ N> ~^ 

oo -t^- ^o <-" o oo 

O^ O^ O^ O\ Cs Cs 

to to 

Ki (J\ to -Px 

L*J L*J L*J O \O ^/l 

^J ^J ~-J OO 

to to 2S to iS 

\o -t^ ^o o\ o \o 

^^ ON ON ON ^h ^h 

tO tO k 

U) tO Ul O Ul 

Ul tO '- O Ul 

tO ^- L*J \O \O tO 

OO to ON O 

Ul ~-J »O U) 'O O 

O\ ~- £ CTN ON Ul 

CTN ' L*J tO L*J L*J 

Ul Ui U> ^- ^-0 

to i to to to 

ui ui ui o o ui 

A A A 

L*J L*J L*J ^ »O 

b\ ^. to 

tO k k U) 

O Ul ^. L*J \O L*J 

bo

^J OO ^J ^J ^J ~-J 

~J o o (o bo *». 

L*J OO ^. L*J tO ON 

^J to O ^O o oo 

o to ^. to o to 

L*J 4^. 4^. L*J LO L>J Ui -~J u) ^j ±^ to 

oo to -t^. -t^. *>. O 

A A 

, Ul OO ^. ^. -~J 

bo bo 

oo oo 

. A A A 

! ui ^ ^. £*. u) 

bo bo 

oo oo 

ON OO ^J O\ O\ Ui 

CTN to O\ oo L*J -t^. 

k ^J U) O\ to ~-J 

O 

5

 a

w

Ui ON ^J OO \O 

g^ o\ CTJ o\ c\ 

tO tO Ul ^J ^J 

^D ^O *O *O ^2 

^ CS ON ON ON 

to 

*> \O L^> tO *x 

O k tO Ul U) 

U) k tO -t^. ON 

ON OS ON OS OS 

tO UJ ON ^J OO 

ON ON ON ON ON 

k U) tO \O Ul 

^. U) to to O 

~J ^O ON Ul ^J 

tO ON L*J k OO 

tO ON ^O ^J O 

H- k k ^J 

to to o to 

U) k tO ^-0 U) 

O O O O O 

A A A A A 

L*J L*J U> U> U> 

\O ^. k tO L*J 

oo ^J ! ! ~-j ^J ^J 

^0 Ul 

OO Ul , Ul 

ui k ! ! to 

to U) to to 

ui to o ^o o ^. UJ -~J OO OO 

00000

A k- A A A 

4-^ CO 4-^ 4-^ 4-^ 

bo bo bo bo 

oo oo oo oo 

A A A , 

4^ ON 4^ 4^ ', bo oo oo 

oo oo oo 

to £ £ 

Vj "to 'k 

,OOOO U) 

loo ! o 

O

0

 a

to

to U) 4^. 

4^. Ul Ul Ul 

fo 1^ ^ to 

iO O 4^ O 

^O vo *O vO 

ON ON ON ON 

k- tO kU> Ul O 4i. 

to 4^- O L^> 

k ON ~-J ON 

4^. Ul Ul Ul 

C3 ii ii fj 

o o ui k- 

\O \O O \O 

ON ON ON ON 

H- OO L*J \O 

S Ul OO O 

U) U) Ul tO 

 4x k ON 

oo U) 4^- \O 

O Ui 4^- to 

U) ON 

to 

ui o ui ui 

vo ! 4^ ^J 

to A 

o k ui ui 

OO -~J ^J OO 

S

o bo bo 

Ul Ul -~J 

OO ON Ul ~-J 

ON OO *O \O 

^o \o oo 

tO k Ul 

1 oo oo to 

. A A A 

! 4^ 4^ 4^ 

bo bo bo 

oo oo oo 

 A A 

! to 4^ 4^ 

bo bo 

oo oo 

- 

ON "-J "-J ON 

ON ON Ui to 

0000

o

0

 a

o k to u> 4^- Ui 

^J ^J ~J OO 

oo 4^- *o Ui o oo 

ON ON ON ON ON ON 

tO tO k 

Ul 4i. k Ul O Ul 

O k Ul O Ul k 

~-J ^J ~J OO 

to fo 92 to iS 

OO 4^- ^O ON O OO 

ON ON ON ON ON ON 

to k to 

tO 4^. k- ^J tO 

ui ui ui to to to 

O tO Ul OO Ul OO 

to k- to 

O 4^ ^J oo Ui ui 

U) Ul ON OO Ul *O 

oo k- to ON *O 

Ul -^1 O Ul O O 

ON k 4^. ON ON Ul 

, Ul Ul O Ul 

4X U) 

Ul tO Ul Ul Ul 

! o ui o o ui 

4^. oo O Ui 4^. oo 

bo ui ui bo k 

U) ON OO k 4^. Ul 

^J 4^- ON O O O 

ON ^J ON ^J ~-J ON 

oo o to ui oo 

Ul ~-J ~-J Ul 4^. Ul 

4^. 4^ to Ul 4^. Ul 

OO tO O ON tO 

ON tO 4i. k- 

^ 4^- ON Ul \D A 

O ON 4^- to O ~-J 

o

tO tO k tO Ul k 

Ul tO OO ^J Ul OO 

to o to oo oo oo 

Ul Ul Ul Ul ON 4^- 

tO OO 4^- ^J tO Ul 

"tO 4^. tO OO Ul Ul 

^J O ON k 4^- tO 

O 4^ OO Ul ^J ON 

O

0

 a

w

Ul ON ^J OO ^O 

ON ON ON ON ON 

ON ON ON ON ON 

k- tO kON oo to k- 4i. 

tO O k 4^ 

ON OO 4^. -J k 

tO tO ON ^J OO 

ON ON ON ON ON 

to

Ul , k Ul Ul 

5*C*B

U) k tO 

' 'Ul \D ON O 

OO Ul \O k Ul 

tO ON Ul k- OO 

N> ON O ~J O 

OO Ul U) OO k 

O Ul O Ul O 

- OO O 00 

bo bo ^~j bo 

. O ON Ul ^J 

I O o to oo 

^J OO ^J ^J ^J 

OO O k k N> 

Ul -~J Ul Ul 

Ul Ui Ul tO Ul 

Ul Ul Ul ^J OO 

ON

ui ui to 

OO O \D Ul OO 

\D Ul O §^J 

o o o o 

ui o to 

4^. Ui O ^J ~-J o o ON \o to 

4i.k-4i.ului

- "ui ' j "ui ON O\ 

f^i Ul tO O 1 Ul 

O O O U) O 

o

o

 a

to

> tO Ul 4i4^. Ul Ul 

to !=0 to 

ON ON ON ON 

^J ^J OO Ul 

k- k- ui o 

oo o oo 4^. 

4^. Ul Ul Ul 

jo kt: ~ jo 

*o o ui o 

ON ON ON ON 

Ul 4^. ON ^J 

k Ul Ul k 

Ul ^J ON 

tO Ul k 

O 4i. 4i. --J 

Ul OO OO 

ui ui ui to 

k- 4*. ON 

OO Ul 4^- *O 

OO Ul Ul ^J 

~-J ^O ^J OO 

bo

4^ tO t k Ul 

Ui O O O 

,- .- k- Ul 

Ul Ul Ul 

ui bo ui to 

_ k- k- to 

to 4i- §O 

000

4^. ON Ul Ul 

-~J ui oo to 

4^. 4^. Ul Ui 

O O Ul OO 

"k- "k- 4> ON 

Ul tO 4^ Ul 

0 0 0 -ti4^. tO k Ul 

tO \O Ul ON 

tO ON ON O 

^J ON Ul O 

tO OO ON ON 

tO tO i 

"k "k OO "k 

ON Ul tO \O 

O O ^J O 

o

o

 o

Storm

no.

Beginning

sample

date

Beginning

sample

time

Ending

sample

date

Ending

sample

time

Rainfall 

(mm)

Flow

volume

) 3 (m

Turbidity

(NTU)

Color

(PU)

Biochemical

oxygen

demand

(mg/L)

Chemical

oxygen

demand

(mg/L)

PH

(SIC)

Alkalinity

(mg/L)

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/L)

Total

suspended

solids

(mg/L)

Volatile

suspended

solids

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(us/cm)

(Q 

(Q

3

(Q

a(D

TJ

to

3

<D

W

77 o. 

5 w 

- 2. 

3/ o 

n> 3 

- O 

3 o 

W W § 3

ro 3 

" H 

3 <~> 

* i « 

ps o 

EL

§. o 

<f S'l1 


 w 

§"1

£ ^ 

*?

' * 

T=

era

r

o'

3

era

3

 a

ro

12. 1'

 p

i

o

1. f?'

ro

3

CO

o

CO

3

a.

ro

ro

",'

-'

3

0

gZ

H

C

Z

U

5'

u

gaSi

c

£

13

C

ET

5'

1

o

o 

<y

EL

c

3

£?

D

O

n

> a 

?"§

a *< 

x" CO 

r* 5 

Q 2- 

QO

-J QJ 

o s, CD a> 

D CQ 

=r CD 

91°' ~ '^, 

13 ^ 

^ D) 

D ^- 

Q- CD 

o CD 

||

CD 

0)

W

c

CD 

CD

W

0^

3

0

"'

0

CD

a.

B.

0

c

9L

*<

o

0)

1

CDW.'

o'

W5'

5'

^**

c

CD

0)

Z3

Q.

CD

CD

-*

O

CD

^

C_

6

0)

3

cr

CD

CD

Q.

H

CD

0)

3

CD

H

n\

3
Appendix 1. Concentrations and other measurements of monitored water-quality characteristics in influent and effluent to the Multi-Cha

at Ruby Street Garage, Milwaukee, Wis. Continued

Nutrients

E . 

2 c

z

in

re

I*

Z

n

O 

z Z

+ w 

CM re 

O

Phosphorus, 

dissolved (mg/L)

Phosphorus, 

total (mg/L) Calcium, dissolved (mg/L) 1 ~ d 

|1|

O """

Magnesium, dissolved (mg/L)

Major ions

| _ «"S - 

w « d 1 > =J

fl) £ O) o O O>

c o p 2 m c 

a> £. J= w S 

| 0 =5

oT w '-j5 o "&>

Hardness, dissolved (mg/L)

Hardness, 

total (mg/L) Cadmium, dissolved (H9/L) P

1

0

Influent

Group 1

1

1

3

4

0.133

0.051

.097

<.027

0.192

.301

.281

.363

0.04

--

.025

<.002

0.255

.229

.205

.308

14

13

13

22

36

37

34

90

0.5

.46

.52

.96

10 619

10 613

10 215

31 302

21

18

16

30

36

34

34

60

130

130

130

350

1.1

.03

.03

.15

Group 2

5

6

7

8

9

.128

.251

<.027

.18

<.027

.347

.18

.404

1.36

.363

.001

<.002

.002

.012

0

.215

.44

.234

.101

.188

35

45

31

11

16

65

150

79

18

34

.98

1.1

.82

.4

.52

17 2,420

46 3,560

25 1,700

4 177

11 458

42

58

41

18

19

91

120

80

30

41

230

560

300

61

130

.51

.74

.33

.05

.1

Group 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

.258

.031

.053

<.027

.044

<.027

.273

.276

.4

.426

.353

.393

.031

<.002

.04

<.002

.003

.026

.388

.31

.262

.311

.33

.288

16

17

8.3

17

14

13

45

35

57

210

43

31

1.2

1.1

.51

.98

.75

.89

14 342

10 84.9

21 57.2

100 208

15 68.4

9.8 127

19

15

10

22

16

17

45

47

23

47

37

37

170

130

230

950

170

120

.63

.22

.11

.31

.13

.41

Effluent

Group 1

I

2

3

4

.069

<.027

<.027

<.027

.273

.294

.281

.27

.016

--

.007

.004

.046

.03

.018

.016

18

22

21

26

19

22

20

27

3.4

3.7

2.6

2.7

3.6 427

3.7 476

2.6 478

2.8 427

39

24

27

28

60

70

64

76

61

70

61

79

.97

.4

.02

.05

Group 2

5

6

7

8

9

.088

<.027

.062

<.027

<.027

.456

.463

.328

.353

.317

.002

.002

.001

.001

.001

.017

.014

.022

.019

.018

68

38

47

42

30

66

39

46

42

29

13

5.6

4.6

3.3

2

13 777

6.4 1,240

4.7 1,820

3.3 1,790

2.1 1,290

36

33

44

47

38

220

120

140

120

82

220

120

130

120

82

.02

<.02

.02

<.02

<.02

Group 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

<.027

.064

.082

.089

.105

.115

.074

.127

.126

.11

.166

.139

.001

<.002

.003

<.002

.01

.004

.043

.023

.037

.033

.051

.088

23

43

37

31

34

28

25

44

39

32

33

28

2.4

4.6

3.8

3.4

3.3

2.9

2.9 144

4.8 167

4.3 158

3.4 139

3.4 116

3.1 100

22

25

22

20

19

16

68

130

110

92

99

83

74

130

120

94

97

83

.14

.05

.07

.05

.1

.15
02 pajaquiei|0-!)|n|/\| }uaui)eaji 'WBJI e iuauia6eue|/\| 90JA9Q 

O to LO .fx Lft 

K) 'A tO LO 

LO 4x ~~3 O i

.fx tO LO LO LO ON 

H- A A A A 

LO ,fX ,fX ,fX -fX NO 

LO to LO > i to 

LO NO Lft LO 

A A A A A A 

OO 00 OO 00 OO OO 

A A A A A 

Lft NO NO NO NO NO 

* £ £ £ £ 5 

* 4, * U, OS ~ 

LO jx bo »-> NO 

A i A : : A 

22 2 

00 00 OO 

A : A i : A 

22 2 

Jx Jx tx 

A ! A i ! A 

b b b 

Lft Lft Lft 

A ! A ! ! A 

b b b 

Lft Lft Lft 

0 NO NO 

A ! A ! ! A 

b b b 

UJ LO LO 

! i A i ! A 

b b 

NO NO 

A i A 1 ! A 

b b b 

NO NO NO 

OO OO OO 

A : A : : A 

b b b 

~o ~o ~o 

LO LO LO 

O

o

c a

CO

Lft Cs ^1 oo O 

A *- 

-J ~J u> oo to 

.fx LO LO tO tO 

A A A A 

Lft -fx .fx ,fx -fx 

 to to A 

LO LO 00 O 

A A A A A 

OO OO OO OO 00 

A A A A 

 Lft 

O NO O-2 NO NO 

! .fx to ! to 

LO 

! .fx to ! to 

-fx ON -fx 

! A i ! i 

g

OO

! A A i A 

b b b 

-fx -fx fx 

-t- .tx fx 

! A A i A 

b b b 

Lft Lft Lft 

! A ! i ! 

b

Lft

NO

! A A ! A 

b b b 

LO LO LO 

! A A i A 

b b b 

NO O NO 

! A A ! A 

b b b 

oo oo oo 

! A A ! A 

b b b 

LO LO LO 

O

o

c a

ro

' to LO Jx 

Lft > i

^i oo cs to 

OO LO to LO 

A A 

to -fx -fx NO 

tO ' i 

O OO LO O 

to A A A 

tO OO OO 00 

A A A 

tO >-> 

Lft ! to to 

Lft [ tO tO 

bo ^- LO 

! i ! ! 

1 1 , ! 

i : : : 

i : i : 

! i i 1 

....

! ! ! ! 

! 1 1 ! 

O

o

c a

1 -

FT

C

(D

<-*

O >-> to '-0 .fx Lft 

_, , _ , _ 

to O -fx to -fx O 

!fx fx 

Jx LO to LO LO LO 

' '~~J ^ NO 4x -fx 

^1 H- H- Lft 

ON O Lft Lft Lft OO 

Lft Lft ON Jx ON tx 

ON Lft tO OO K) ON 

LO A i A tsJ 

00 NO OO OO OO ON 

to to to to <-* 

~ O Lft Lft O Lft 

O O O O O O 

 H- HLft ON 00 i 00 ^1 

LO tO 

H- tO to 

oo O oo to oo O 

cs bo 

A A A : : A 

bob b 

Jx Jx Jx Jx 

oo oo oo oo 

A A A ! i A 

bob b 

Jx Jx Jx Jx 

Jx Jx Jx -Px 

A A i ! A 

O O O O 

Lft Lft ON Lft 

A A Ail 

b b k> b 

Lft Lft U> Lft 

NO NO NO 

A ! ! A 

b i Lft b 

u> oo to u> 

i A ! ! A 

b b b 

O OO O 

A ! ! A 

O LO O 

OO OO 

A ! ! A 

b » Lft b 

LO LO 

0

o

c

T3

CO

Lft O\ ^1 OO O 

K> LO LO LO LO 

Lft OO Lft tO UJ 

. Lft to .to 

NO OO tO 'OS 

A A 

OS .fx .fx Lft 

to ^1 LO > i LO 

LO N) UJ ON OO 

A A A A 

OO OO OO OO LO 

tO H- ' 

NO Lft iLft LO 

O O O Lft O 

to Lft Lft Lft fx 

'<-' OS LO tO LO 

to Lft ON Lft t*. 

to ^J LO O ON 

A A ! A ! 

b b b 

-fx -tx fx 

oo oo oo 

A A A A A 

b b b b b 

Jx K Jx Jx Jx 

Jx Jx Jx Jx Jx 

A A A A 

00000

Lft Lft Lft Lft Lft 

A A ! A ! 

b b b 

Lft Lft Lft 

NO NO NO 

A A A A A 

b b b b b 

LO LO LO LO LO 

A A A A A 

b b b b b 

NO NO NO NO NO 

A A A A A 

S O O O O 

NO NO NO NO 

oo oo oo oo oo 

A A A A A 

b b b b b 

^} -~j ^ ^} ^ 

LO LO LO LO LO 

0

o

c

T3

ro

to LO Jx 

00 i tO ^1 

--J ON LO 

LO to LO -fx 

H- Jx to OO 

A A >- 

Lft 4x 4x LO 

Jx Jx ix ^1 

OO ON -Px 

to A A 

ON OO OO NO 

ON Lft Jx to 

0000

^ _ l 

ON LO Jx to 

OO NO OS 

^1 Ji. Lft OS 

NO LO tO 

o ; i A 

2 2 

00 0° 

o ! A A 

o 00 

K -fx fx 

^ Jx Jx 

0 A A A 

o 0 0 0 

<y, Lft Lft Lft 

o A A A 

o b b b 

,7; Lft Lft Lft 

^ NO NO NO 

o o A A 

b o b b 

g g LO LO 

o o A A 

b o b b 

0 0 NO NO 

o A A 

o o o o 

Cg NO NO NO 

£o OO NO OO 

o A A A 

o b b b 

ij -~J -J ~j 

J3 LO LO LO 

O

o

c a

1 -

-*.

C

(D

3

Storm

no.

Copper,

dissolved

(M9/L)

Copper,

total

(ng/L)

Lead,

dissolved

(ug/L)

Lead,

total

(ng/L)

Zinc,

dissolved

(ng/L)

Zinc,

total

(ng/L)

DOC,

(mg/L)

TOC,

(mg/L)

Acenaphthene

(^g/L)

Acenaphthylene

(ng/L)

Antnracene

(ng/L)

[a] Benzo 

anthracene

(ng/L)

Chrysene

(^g/L)

[a,h] Dibenzo 

anthracene

/

(ua/L) \r*5J 

Fluoranthene

(uO/L)

[b] Benzo 

fluoranthene

\ fi/i . /. 

2

2.

5T

0

o

O w'

0)

o_

<

Q.

5

X

2

C

c*<

C

o

c

C

c

2

(C

C

«

* 

<

c

c

p

c

(1

<

«

c

C

c

E

Cl

c

>> 

«i* * 

DT3

3 7 

a: 

* ^ 

r* 3 

>

O ) 

3 13 

CD 3 

3 2 

=T D 

CO

 "* o'^ ^ 

>

CO - 

3 C 

Q- D 

9. D 

~* o' 

3

S i 

» 3 

^ i 

i ? 

CD D 

M"

3 2. 

3

o

3.

o

Q.

10

c

C0_

o

CO

o.

CD

1'

5'

s[ E"

CD

CO

a.

CD

c"

CD

3-

0

CD

i

6

CO

3

CT

CD

cB

Q.

H

CD

CO

3

CD

H

CO3'
Appendix 1. Concentrations and other measurements of monitored water-quality characteristics in influent and effluent to the Multi-C

at Ruby Street Garage, Milwaukee, Wis. Continued

 o 

1

Q.

Dissolved PAH

li

CO

0)

S1 g ^ o 

 o£ J g J

Sit §! a) »- >3 3 >3 

m § E

co ! 52

r" |* Q) t. -^Y

§' -3 t! §5 -3; 

Z g S. 

m

i g§ s s

£ £ 3 £3

J!L a> ^ 

Sit

g a.3 

m

& n £ ~$i

£ 

Q. 0) T

(o c d

COO)

8 £3 8 £ 3

0)

^ 

c ^

Total PAH

0)

s g ~ O <-> d

o> £ 3 

m c

(0

0)

O ~

Influent

Group 1

1

2

3

4

<0.059 <0.12

<.059

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<0.054 <0.05

<.05

<.05

<.054 <.05

<0.035 <0.063

<.063

.12 .063

.1 .082

<0.041

<041

<.041

<.041

<0.078

<.078

<.078

<.078

<0.048

-

<.12

<.048

<0.044

<.ll

<.044

<.044

0.34

.17

.21

.19

1.1

.54

.6

.98

1.3

.92

1

1.3

Group 2

5

6

7

8

9

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059

<.059 <.12

<.059

<.054 <.05

<.054 <.05

<.05

<.054 <.05

<.05

.12 <.063

.2 <.063

.097

.16 <.063

.1

<.041

<.041

-

<.041

--

<.078

<.078

<.078

<.078

<.078

<.048

.17

<.l

<.048

<.l

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.015

.32

.093

<.2

.11

.16

1.4

.37

<,24

.54

.35

2.1

.58

<.26

.71

Group 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

<.059 <.12

.072 <.12

.24 <.12

-

-

<.059 <.12

<.054 <.05

<.054 .13

<.054 .38

..

<.054 <.05

.11 <.063

.051 .27

.35 .79

..

..

<.035 <.063

<.041

.075

.38

-

-

<.041

<.078

.14

.39

-

-

<.078

<.048

<.048

-

.23

<.048

<.048

<.044

<.044

--

<.044

<.044

<.044

.034

<.015

--

.26

.041

.026

<.32

.18

--

1

.46

<.34

.69

.5

-

1.5

.89

.55

Effluent

Group 1

1

2

3

4

--

-

--

--

..

..

--

..

..

--

--

-

-

--

--

--

--

--

<.048

<.048

--

<.048

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.059

<.059

<.059

<.059

<.03

<.03

<.03

<.03

Group 2

5

6

1

9

-

<.059 <.12

<.059

<.059

..

<.054 <.05

<.05

<.05

..

<.035 <.063

--

--

<.041

--

-

--

<.078

<.078

<.078

<.048

<.048

--

~

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.059

<.059

--

-

<.03

<.03

<.03

<.03

Group 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

-

-

<.059 <.12

<.054 <.05

..

<.054 <.05

-.

<.054 <.05

<.035 <.063

<.035 <.063

..

-

<.035 <.063

<.041

-

<.041

-

<.041

<.078

-

<.078

-

-

<.078

<.048

<.048

<.048

<.048

<.048

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.044

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.015

<.059

<.059

<.059

<.059

<.059

<.03

<.03

<.03

<.03

<.03
Appendix 1. Concentrations and other measurements of monitored water-quality 

characteristics in influent and effluent to the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train at 

Ruby Street Garage, Milwaukee, Wis. Continued

I

6

D)

D>

D> 

(O 

(0

9

E . 

1 8

0)

s?S- £~ 

w|5 II 

g & 5 gs

CD o- jjjm 

£ w 5

f * * CO ^-^

Total PAH

 C 0) < 

r£ C C 0) - 

3 W ,J «S C J

sfi 111

go. °- ~

CD

0) ^~,

> £

fli

Indeno [1,2,3-c,d] pyrene (ng/L)

Influent

Group 1

1

2

3

4

0.79 <0.25

.51 <.15

.48 <.17

<.46 <.12

<0.054

<.14

<.054

<.054

1 1.5

<.64 1.3

.77 1.4

1 2

2.4

1.6

1.8

2.4

1.2

<.62

.85

1

1

<.8

.74

1

Group 2

5

6

7

8

9

.16 <.12

1 .38

.27

.098 <.12

.34

<.054

<.054

<.06

<.054

<.08

.24 .28

1.4 2.8

.4 .86

.15 .12

.61 .56

.47

3.2

1.1

.55

1.4

.21

1.6

<.4

.14

.73

.23

1.4

.41

.16

.52

Group 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

.29 <.12

.19 <.12

..

.79 .21

.4 <.12

.19 <.12

<.054

<.054

-

<.095

<.054

<.054

.45 .56

.34 .15

__

1.3 1.6

.64 .53

.44 .28

1.2

.75

-

2.8

1.2

.72

.41

.28

-

1.5

.7

.39

.44

.32

--

1.2

.6

.38

Effluent

Group 1

1

2

3

4

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.054

<.054

<.054

<.05 <.035

<.05 <.035

<.05 <.035

<.05 <.035

<.063

<.063

<.063

<.063

<.041

<.041

<.041

<.041

<.078

<.078

<.078

<.078

Group 2

5

6

7

9

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059

<.059

<.054

<.054

--

-

<.05 <.035

<.05 <.035

<.05

<.05

<.063

<.063

--

-

<.041

<.041

--

--

<.078

<.078

<.078

<.078

Group 3

10

11

12

13

14

15

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.059 <.12

<.054

<.054

--

<.054

<.054

<.054

<.05 <.035

<.05 <.035

-

<.035

<.05 <.035

<.05 <.035

<.063

<.063

--

<.063

<.063

<.063

<.041

<.041

--

<.041

<.041

<.041

<.078

<.078

--

<.078

<.078

<.078
Appendix 2. Loads and removal efficiencies of monitored constituents in the influent and effluent to the Multi-Chambered Treatment Tra

in Milwaukee, Wis.

[mg, milligram; ND, not detected; PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons]

Aggregate characteristics

Q. | j= 1 » 8 £ 1 w" 1" w" 

o o> °* 5 E 'g o> «5 E := E 

*- -C 5* £ 2 ID 5* P 2 ^2

o y 8 -S o> j= g «> o> * o> O ° TO O ° TO ' < ^ 

ffi

1 255 2,070 600 

2 296 1,610 775 

3 741 3,860 1,130 

Total 1,290 7,550 2,510

1 68.8 128 1,020 

2 ND 261 944 

3 122 658 2,640 

Total 224 1,050 4,600

TO > ** """

*~ .2 « ,0)

7,800 

66,700 

9,790 

84,300

10,200 

52,000 

11,100 

73,300

Q) "- * a\ <U -~^

 TOIOM .S! TO OT OT

OT W O) £» OT OT O)

3 ^ *^ 3 ^ 

OT OT

3,220 676 

10,000 1,340 

5,040 1,090 

18,300 3,110

ND 60.2 

158 58.7 

116 60.4 

301 179

Nutrients

z "5T ® 'OT'

5 S O S 

z z

Loads

Influent

1.13 4.06 

2.41 8.8 

2.71 10.9 

6.26 23.8

Effluent

.371 4.05 

0.658 8.51 

2.28 3.5 

3.31 16.1

OT

O > "**" 

 & "5 m

« OT 0) O ^^

Q_

0.258 

.037 

.632 

.928

.098 

0.023 

0.081 

0.202

Phosphorus, 

total (grams)

3.48 

5.99 

9.85 

19.3

.385 

0.394 

1.62

2.4

llf

3|1>

215 

644 

444 

1,300

311 

899 

897 

2,110

.2 s E 

_o o 2

TO *^ n>

o 

658 

1,750 

2,310 

4,720

311 

889 

926 

2,130

Major 

Magnesium, dissolved 

8

17

29

55

44.

105 

93

243

Removal efficiency as a percentage of influent load

Appendix 23

1 77 94 -70 

2 89 84 -22 

3 84 83 -133 

Total 83 86 -83

Major ions

TO ^^ «f TO _ «f _ 

Q. o> « OT w o> w y at 

g g| E g| E £ « E 

A 15 g S "Sjg P2 

=5 -' i =5 ** i ^-"

1 291 567 2470 

2 820 1,690 6,530 

3 543 1,240 9,820 

Total 1,650 3,500 18,800

1 420 964 960 

2 857 2,690 2,650 

3 605 2,660 2,750 

Total 1,880 6,320 6,360

-31 

22 

-13 

13

I " ~ I 

1 o f I

<0 . <0

O TO O

99 93 

98 96 

98 94 

98 94

E « E

If § i f |||!

o ' o

4.16 19.8 14.5 97.9 

8.2 41 9.96 151 

12 60.2 37.8 239 

24.4 121 62.2 488

4.69 

.286 

3.36

8.34

4.22 20 14.6 

.661 18.4 ND 

5.42 25.9 82.5 

10.3 64.3 108

67 0

73 3 

16 68 

47 33

Metals

Q. ^r O) Q. W O)

5r* M cz 5r* O c O I.J -^-' O ** ^»^ 

0 -| 0

Loads

Influent

64.3 474 

76.4 740 

308 1,100 

449 2,320

Effluent

35.7 54.1 

20 59.9 

67.6 126 

123 240

62

38 

87 

78

,"1-

TO

9.98 

13.1 

133 

156

7.95 

5.16 

21.9 

35

89 

93

84 

88

II!

ill

990 

1,600

3,320

24.5 

33 

82.7 

140

-44 

-40 

-102 

-62

TO 

N g 

141 

163 

727 

1,030

115 

ND 

ND

327

53 

49 

60 

55

Jj TO O)

2330 

3420 

5920 

11,700

199

384 

423 

1,010

-424 

-502 

-219 

-340

.y e 

c O 

^ .O 

^ (0 

o o

7

9

42

59

3

5

18

27

Removal efficiency as a percentage of influent load

1 -44 -70 61 

2 -4 -59 59 

3 -11 -114 72 

Total -14 -81 66

-13 

97 

72 

66

79 -38 85 

98 -85 93 

91 31 66 

91 -3 78

44 89 

74 92 

78 89 

73 90

20 

61

84 

78

97 

97 

95 

96

19

45 

83 

68

91 

89 

93 

91

6

4

5

5
Appendix 3. Results from Microtox analyses of influent and 

effluent samples at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train at 

Ruby St. Garage, Milwaukee, Wis.

Microtox Gamma values

Storm no.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

5 minute

0.26

.09

.11

.32

.05

.01

.12

.25

-.04

.09

.5

.24

.15

.12

.26

Influent

15 minute

0.34

.1

.15

.41

.03

.02

.04

.34

.02

.09

.49

.31

.17

.23

.3

5 minute

-0.12

-.23

-.16

-.06

-.23

-.19

-.15

-.23

-.25

-.05

-.07

-.02

-.12

-.12

-.1

Effluent

15 minute

-0.14

-.28

-.24

-.09

-.27

-.23

-.22

-.25

-.26

-.04

-.17

-.05

-.13

-.12

-.13

24 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device

^p Printed on recycled paper